Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday April 24, 2014 @12:06PM
from the bad-examples-world-wide dept.

First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies."
Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.

Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like.

Rights are things created by humans in an effort to make society better. Society will usually dictate that governments (or people) can't infringe or take away people's rights except in extreme circumstances. Long and boring explanations that go into specifics are unnecessary; rights are not magic things that just exist.

But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.

Then, simply put, you believe all rights are privileges. Calling them "natural" does not make your notion of rights seem any less magical.

it doesn't work that way.

Stating that it does not work that way does not make it so. By all accounts, it does work that way. There's no reason to think that it doesn't, just like there's no reason to believe in a god.

Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.

Pretending that things are not rights that clearly are in fact cheapens those things that are rights.

Have you consulted your magical rights fairy to see what is and is not a right? How do you even find this shit out, except by making up your own definition of what constitutes as a "right," or mindlessly repeating the words of others?

You have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You do not have the right to take food from another man just because you are hungry. There are others of course but you get the point.

You most certainly do not have the right to internet at some arbitrary service level, this is just so much bullshit made up to keep the proles thinking they are being cared for by their benelovent masters. You do of course have the right to remain blissfully blind to this and be as happy as you like accessing facebook and the like over your Free Citizen Internet Service Account. Must be wonderful to be you. (that's snark if you missed it).

If you do not believe these things that is your choice, and good for you I say. But what I say is truth, all you need do is think about it. I could be wrong... but of course I am not.

Firstly nothing is free, this is not a matter of opinion, this is simply truth, like gravity, *things* cost *money* and healthcare is a thing.

If you have a right to healthcare, who pays for it? How much do doctors get paid? What if the doctor decides he wants more money than the state is willing to pay?

I will tell you what; if healthcare is a right that is to be enforced by the state, then the state has to force the doctor to work for the going rate. We call that slavery. If they fail to do this then you have no healthcare then do you?

Slavery is not a right, period. Nice society you have there Mr. Brazillian.

The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?

Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?

Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is "faith" to you, then your definition of "faith" is indeed worthless.

That's pretty reasonable don't you think?

That depends on what you think qualifies as a "right." And the magical bullshit makes it unreasonable to me.

And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.

I will, however, refer to you as an ignorant nutter. You don't understand atheists or faith. You're welcome.